CRL Sucks big time
Dennis Wong
I wanted access to the Internet and after reading an ad in Microtimes,
I called CRL and asked if they had a dial up in my area (San Jose 2)
and they said, "yes." Cool. I gave them my credit card into and signed
the necessary paper work to get the account established. After everything
was done, they gave me the dial up number... a 415 number. I called
and asked if that was local to me and they said, "yes." There is no
way a 415 number can be local to me so I called the operator and found
out that it costs me $.26/min. I called CRL back and asked for another
dial up and they said they didn't have another one in my area. So I said,
fine, then just cancel my subscription and just bill me for the 1 day
that I actually used my account. They said they will bill me for 1 month's
of service PLUS their setup fee. They said there was nothing they could
do because their billing program is configured in such a way that it will
not allow them to pro-rate usage. BS. I told them that I ASKED if they
had a dial up in my area and, based on their representation, I signed up.
I will not call LD to access Internet when I can do it with a local call
from a number of other providers. They basically said I was SOL and that
I will be billed for a month's worth of service and the set up fee.
I told them that I was gonna share my experience with CRL with the other
netters and they chuckled and said, "You know, I get threats like that
all the time and if it makes you happy, go ahead."
Anyway, I decided to call A2i, and have been very pleased with this
provider. System is almost never down and service is just awesome.
So if anyone is looking for a provider, DO NOT CALL CRL.
(phew, I feel lots better now...)
-> dw...@rahul.net <-
-> Tequila: Not just a breakfast drink anymore. <-
--
Dennis S. Wong <dw...@rahul.net>
John Navas
> Please skip this message if you don't want my grief.
> I wanted access to the Internet and after reading an ad in Microtimes,
> I called CRL and asked if they had a dial up in my area (San Jose 2)
> and they said, "yes." Cool. I gave them my credit card into and signed
> the necessary paper work to get the account established. After everything
> was done, they gave me the dial up number... a 415 number. I called
> and asked if that was local to me and they said, "yes." There is no
> way a 415 number can be local to me so I called the operator and found
> out that it costs me $.26/min. I called CRL back and asked for another
> dial up and they said they didn't have another one in my area. So I said,
> fine, then just cancel my subscription and just bill me for the 1 day
> that I actually used my account. They said they will bill me for 1 month's
> of service PLUS their setup fee. They said there was nothing they could
> do because their billing program is configured in such a way that it will
> not allow them to pro-rate usage. BS. I told them that I ASKED if they
> had a dial up in my area and, based on their representation, I signed up.
> I will not call LD to access Internet when I can do it with a local call
> from a number of other providers. They basically said I was SOL and that
> I will be billed for a month's worth of service and the set up fee.
> I told them that I was gonna share my experience with CRL with the other
> netters and they chuckled and said, "You know, I get threats like that
> all the time and if it makes you happy, go ahead."
You should simply dispute the charge when you get your credit card bill,
stating misrepresentation as the reason.
Best regards,
John
<<filler>>
<<filler>>
<<filler>>
<<filler>>
<<filler>>
<<filler>>
<<filler>>
<<filler>>
<<filler>>
<<filler>>
<<filler>>
<<filler>>
<<filler>>
<<filler>>
<<filler>>
Tyler Kelly
> You should simply dispute the charge when you get your credit card bill,
> stating misrepresentation as the reason.
>
Absolutely! What a ripoff?
Paul A Vixie
also very bizarre. CRL does have 408-local numbers. you were apparently
given bad information; i'd call and complain, even if only to save others
from a similar fate.
--
Paul Vixie
Redwood City, CA
decwrl!vixie!paul
<pa...@vix.com>
Jack Hahn
: > Absolutely! What a ripoff?
CRL does not have any 408-local numbers. The phone number that they recommend
for "San Jose N" is 415-917-9995. This is presumeably a local (zone 2)
call for parts of San Jose.
Jack
Mike Meyer
> You should simply dispute the charge when you get your credit card bill,
> stating misrepresentation as the reason.
I would say you have grounds for disputing the entire fee, including
the one day you offered to let them keep. After all, you paid the LD
charges for that access.
Also, don't forget to file a complaint with the BBB.
<mike
Bob Wilkins n6fri
: Anyway, I decided to call A2i, and have been very pleased with this
: provider. System is almost never down and service is just awesome.
Just to be fair Why don't you call rahul.net and ask the same favor of
them. I don't think you will find any provider willing to set up your
account and give you a days service for just sixty cents.
If you wanted something for nothing you should have tried aol or delphi.
You made a good choice with a2i.
Bob
--
Bob Wilkins work bwil...@cave.org
Berkeley, California home rwil...@ccnet.com
94701-0710 play n6fri@n6eeg.#nocal.ca.usa.noam
Robert Uomini
CRL (host crl3.crl.com) tried to break into our system. I wonder if
it was someone closely associated with CRL or a stranger using one of
their systems. In the latter case, it sorta makes you wonder about their
security.
--ru
Barbara Snyder
>
>Please skip this message if you don't want my grief.
As others have suggested, call your credit card company. However, I suggest you
call them NOW, rather than wait for the bill. The sooner they know you plan
to disput a charge, the better, IMHO.
-- Barb (no WinVN signature yet) art...@znet.com
ph...@crl.com
Did you email root@crl ? Did they cooperate?
Do you have any clue how many people use CRL?
Do you have any clue how many breakins per week occur from Netcom, Portal,
The Well, a2i, digex, etc?
If they don't respond, then you can bitch.
But you get bad apples when you get thousands of users.
Ask any university or major site.
Phred
Peter Campbell
: I wonder about the folks at CRL. Just today someone apparently from
I rather doubt that someone closely associated with CRL tried to break
into your system.
If it was a subscriber to CRL, what kind of security do you suggest that
CRL employs. Perhaps not allowing TELNET to your system?
I would think that the security of your system to prevent unauthorized
use is the responsibility of your system.
What kind of security does your system employ to prevent unauthorized
entry by your people onto CRL?
Makes me wonder about your system.
Rob Robertson
From: uom...@fractals.fractals (Robert Uomini)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Reply-To: uom...@fractals.fractals
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.174.235.10
wow, your domain name in your post is all screwed up, and your
organization line is pretty suspect.
it kindda makes me wonder about any technical judgements you might
make. the fact that www.fractal.com is behind a modem link just
firms my opinion up.
it seems the only people dumber than you are your customers.
rob
Daniel
>Just to be fair Why don't you call rahul.net and ask the same favor of
>them.
>I don't think you will find any provider willing to set up your
>account and give you a days service for just sixty cents.
>
I beg to differ, Bob. The service was misrepresented, and the customer asked
to void the contract. The honorable thing to do is to rebate all charges and
retrain the customer service people.
The customer was harmed because of the long distance charges that were
incurred.
My local provider was honorable enough to retroactively make my account a
plain old dial up shell account when I complained. Giri agreed to charge
setup and monthly fees at the shell rate when the SLIP account proved to be
inadequate for my uses. In my case, also, the service was represented as
something that it was not.
Daniel B. Suthers
= = Youth is a difficult time, and it gets harder as one grows older. = =
Robert Uomini
Yes, I contacted CRL, and got a reply to the effect that CRL
would work with law enforcement folks but that they didn't
feel that it was their responsibility to take proactive
action.
This is an interesting question: is not an Internet provider
ultimately responsible for breakins done by individuals using
the provider's systems? If CRL hadn't given shell access to
their users, it would be more difficult for a user to
break in as, I think, it (the user) would be more easily
identified.
Bob
Robert Uomini
>Robert Uomini (uom...@fractals.fractals) wrote:
>
>: I wonder about the folks at CRL. Just today someone apparently from
>: CRL (host crl3.crl.com) tried to break into our system. I wonder if
>: it was someone closely associated with CRL or a stranger using one of
>: their systems. In the latter case, it sorta makes you wonder about their
>: security.
>
>I rather doubt that someone closely associated with CRL tried to break
>into your system.
>
>If it was a subscriber to CRL, what kind of security do you suggest that
>CRL employs. Perhaps not allowing TELNET to your system?
>
How about not providing unrestricted shell accounts on their systems?
>I would think that the security of your system to prevent unauthorized
>use is the responsibility of your system.
>
From a practical standpoint, I tend to agree. However, as
I mentioned in an earlier post, I think there is a very
interesting legal question here.
>What kind of security does your system employ to prevent unauthorized
>entry by your people onto CRL?
>
We're in the process of designing an application-level gateway.
>Makes me wonder about your system.
How is your system secured?
Robert Uomini
>In article <3502bg$h...@kadath.zeitgeist.net> uom...@fractals.fractals (Robert Uomini) writes:
> From: uom...@fractals.fractals (Robert Uomini)
> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Reply-To: uom...@fractals.fractals
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.174.235.10
>
> I wonder about the folks at CRL. Just today someone apparently from
> CRL (host crl3.crl.com) tried to break into our system. I wonder if
> it was someone closely associated with CRL or a stranger using one of
> their systems. In the latter case, it sorta makes you wonder about their
> security.
>
>wow, your domain name in your post is all screwed up, and your
>organization line is pretty suspect.
>
The domain name problem seems to be with the news reader we're
using (a Sun PD pgm), and the organization name is hard-coded
in the reader (ugh!).
>it kindda makes me wonder about any technical judgements you might
>make. the fact that www.fractal.com is behind a modem link just
>firms my opinion up.
>
We're in line for a full T1, to come up 9/14; our provider couldn't
do it earlier, and we had a commitment to our customers to be up
by 9/1.
>it seems the only people dumber than you are your customers.
>
>rob
You seem to be an opinionated ass. Whoever let you into Berkeley
ought to have his head examined.
--ru
Rob Robertson
You seem to be an opinionated ass.
yes, but i'm an opinionated ass who can configure a newsreader.
rob
kgau...@ssf-sys.dhl.com
In article <ROB.94Se...@gangrene.berkeley.edu>, <r...@agate.berkeley.edu>
writes:
> Path: ssf-sys!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!agate!rob
> From: r...@agate.berkeley.edu (Rob Robertson)
> Newsgroups: ba.internet
> Subject: Re: CRL Sucks big time
> Date: 12 Sep 1994 07:59:47 GMT
> Organization: University of California, Bzerkeley
> Lines: 7
> Distribution: world
> Message-ID: <ROB.94Se...@gangrene.berkeley.edu>
> References: <ROB.94Se...@gangrene.berkeley.edu>
<350nvi$8...@kadath.zeitgeist.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: gangrene.berkeley.edu
> In-reply-to: uom...@fractals.fractals's message of 12 Sep 1994 05:12:18 GMT
There are a LOT of opinionated asses at Berkeley. One less now that I am gone
;)
tate...@netcom.com
Bob Wilkins n6fri <rwil...@ccnet.com> wrote:
>Dennis Wong (dw...@rahul.net) wrote:
>
>: Anyway, I decided to call A2i, and have been very pleased with this
>: provider. System is almost never down and service is just awesome.
>
>Just to be fair Why don't you call rahul.net and ask the same favor of
>them. I don't think you will find any provider willing to set up your
>account and give you a days service for just sixty cents.
>
--
tate...@netcom.com "Let's just say there are a lot of things you
t...@tatertot.com can do with Wesson Oil besides frying chicken"
(Tom Lemos) --Florence Henderson, Wesson Oil spokeswoman
Bob Ames
>Please skip this message if you don't want my grief.
They do certainly suck. They ripped off my mother for $80 by failing to
pay a promised line installation charge. They also misrepresented themselves
to me by promising a nice system, internet connection, and job after I
completed several shell programming projects, including their SLIP $2/hr
billing program, which I wrote. After performing about 100 hours of
work for them, they never fulfilled any of thier commitments to myself
or to my mother.
I suspect they might be some kind of police front organization, as well.
Just by $0.02..
Bob Ames
b...@ccnet.com
510-538-5855
--
--
b...@ccnet.com <<address change<< -or- [soon] b...@rush.com
"We each pay a fabulous price... for our visions of paradise", Neil Peart '87
Joe Buck
uom...@fractals.fractals writes:
>This is an interesting question: is not an Internet provider
>ultimately responsible for breakins done by individuals using
>the provider's systems?
Legally, this is untested as far as I know. Consider analogies:
is the phone company legally responsible if someone uses their
facilities to defraud you? For a public access service such as crl,
this is the closest equivalent.
>If CRL hadn't given shell access to
>their users, it would be more difficult for a user to
>break in as, I think, it (the user) would be more easily
>identified.
Fascinating. So no one should be permitted to provide shell access
since some might abuse it? Fascinating logic, Mr. fractals.fractals.
--
-- Joe Buck <jb...@synopsys.com>
Posting from but not speaking for Synopsys, Inc.
Ed Falk
>
>This is an interesting question: is not an Internet provider
>ultimately responsible for breakins done by individuals using
>the provider's systems?
No. The internet documents are very clear on this. Every site is
responsible for its own security. It was that way back in 1975 when
hostids were still 8 bits. I would say that sites are morally
responsible for helping you track down crackers, but expecting them to
take proactive measures is asking too much.
>If CRL hadn't given shell access to
>their users, it would be more difficult for a user to
>break in as, I think, it (the user) would be more easily
>identified.
Shell access is far too useful to take it away from everybody just to
protect a few insecure sites from a few bad apples.
--
-ed falk, sun microsystems
sun!falk, fa...@sun.com
He who dies with the most friends, wins.
Chris Knight
I just executed a 'dialup | grep 408', and the response was nil.
-ck
Paul A Vixie (vi...@vix.com) wrote:
: > Absolutely! What a ripoff?
J.C. Webber III
>Please skip this message if you don't want my grief.
Naw, I'm in the mood...
>I wanted access to the Internet and after reading an ad in Microtimes,
>I called CRL and asked if they had a dial up in my area (San Jose 2)
>and they said, "yes." Cool. I gave them my credit card into and signed
>the necessary paper work to get the account established.
I bet you could call your credit card company and tell them not to honor
the charge. Tell them that the services requested were not delivered
and that you refuse to pay. They will cancel the charge and CRL can go
cry in their soup. If they threaten to mess with your credit, threaten
to sue. I think you would win the suit because they stated that the
reason they could not refund your money was because of a limitation of
their billing software. That excuse would never hold up in court.
>I told them that I was gonna share my experience with CRL with the other
>netters and they chuckled and said, "You know, I get threats like that
>all the time and if it makes you happy, go ahead."
Don't you just HATE businesses with this attitude. The more you publicize
things like this the more harm it does businesses and eventually, some
of them get hurt so much by the bad publicity that they actually try
to do something about customer service.
>Anyway, I decided to call A2i, and have been very pleased with this
>provider. System is almost never down and service is just awesome.
Glad to hear it.
>So if anyone is looking for a provider, DO NOT CALL CRL.
And pass the word around. Businesses with this attitude towards customers
need to be exposed.
>(phew, I feel lots better now...)
Me too!
--
J.C. Webber III j...@isdn-jumper.corp.sgi.com (home)
Systems Administrator j...@mti.sgi.com (work)
Silicon Graphics, Inc. Tel (408)241-7029 Fax (408)241-7029 (*5)
"Comparing Dos to UNIX is like comparing a mix-master to a chef's kitchen"
Chris Knight
: This is an interesting question: is not an Internet provider
: ultimately responsible for breakins done by individuals using
: the provider's systems? If CRL hadn't given shell access to
: their users, it would be more difficult for a user to
: break in as, I think, it (the user) would be more easily
: identified.
: Bob
And if sporting stores didn't sell baseball bats, riots wouldn't happen.
And if gas stations didn't sell gasoline, auto accidents wouldn't happen.
Best of all... If nobody sold YOU internet service, nobody could have
tried to break in.
I'm not trying to stick it to you too hard. If you are serious, contact
the pigs and then CRL will help you... BUT, please don't try to lay
responsibility for your system on someone else's shoulders.
If the alledged attacker had been using a dynamically addressed PPP
account from CRL, then you would be SOL again, since CRL wouldn't
release that info unless you are the authorities, and the address
wouldn't help you...
Shell account don't kill systems, people kill systems.
-ck
Joe Kukulka
> I suspect they might be some kind of police front organization, as well.
Do you have evidence for this? Or is this just a comment made in anger?
In defense of CRL, I have found CRL to have the fastest response of any
other system I've yet to try. I also hardly ever get a busy, and if I do,
I can usually get in by the 4th try. They are a bit conservative in terms
of programs they will let you run and things they will let you do, and I
gather the owner can be somewhat pig-headed at times (from what I hear from
others), but at least they appear to be leaning toward allowing users to
run TIA.
Also, on the security issue - evryone and their dog has or will soon have
internet access. To expect every sysop to monitor their users constantly
or spend hours writing programs to generate humungous audit trails is a
little unreasonable. They are certainly overworked as it is. On the flip
side of the coin, if I as a user wanted that level of surveilance, I would
be using AOL.
Peace
Joe
Pete Gontier
> I told them that I was gonna share my experience with CRL with the other
> netters and they chuckled and said, "You know, I get threats like that
> all the time and if it makes you happy, go ahead."
Sadly, the number of people who see CRL ads in print media is probably
larger than the number of people who read ba.internet. Still, if I were
CRL, I would take the net.backlash against NETCOM very seriously and work
to avoid that kind of grass-roots antipathy if at all possible.
--
Pete Gontier // CTO, Integer Poet Software // gur...@dnai.com
"The need to be (or appear to be) sophisticated pervades the very
atmosphere in which we, the Magazine Reading Class, move."
-- Ellis Weiner, Spy Magazine, 9/94
Michael C. Grant
In article <357e7a$7...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
uom...@fractals.fractals.COM writes:
In article i...@hermes.synopsys.com, jb...@synopsys.com (Joe Buck) writes:
>Someone whose misconfigured newsreader thinks he is
>uom...@fractals.fractals writes:
>>This is an interesting question: is not an Internet provider
>>ultimately responsible for breakins done by individuals using
>>the provider's systems?
---
1) >Legally, this is untested as far as I know. Consider analogies:
>is the phone company legally responsible if someone uses their
>facilities to defraud you? For a public access service such as crl,
>this is the closest equivalent.
The difference is that CRL has much more control over the use of their
systems than the local phone companies has over theirs.
---
>>If CRL hadn't given shell access to
>>their users, it would be more difficult for a user to
>>break in as, I think, it (the user) would be more easily
>>identified.
---
2) >Fascinating. So no one should be permitted to provide shell access
>since some might abuse it?
You got it.
---
Now wait a minute, 1) and 2) don't mix. See, Pac Bell can CERTAINLY
employ step 2) in order to prevent the voice network from being
abused. Would you prefer Pac Bell disallow the use of their phone
network if they can't guarantee that nobody will abuse it? Hmm.
OK, let's assume that somehow that contradiction is somehow resolved.
I suppose that every university in this country had better deny every
single student and faculty member on its campus access to shell
accounts, since they certainly cannot guarantee that some random
person won't abuse that privilege.
Of course, that means that the same goes for YOUR company, too.
Let's assume, though, that you OWN that company so you're willing to
take responsibility for your employees. Certainly, TLG should not
offer net access to anyone, since people WITH net access can abuse the
net. They could be held responsible for your actions! Of course,
SprintNet shouldn't allow TLG a connection, since in turn THEY
can't guarantee that someone at TLG won't abuse the connection!
--
Michael C. Grant Information Systems Laboratory, Stanford University
mcg...@isl.stanford.edu http://www-isl.stanford.edu/~mcgrant
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When you get right down to it, your "Long hair, short hair---what's
average pervert is really quite the difference once the head's
thoughtful." (David Letterman) blowed off?" (Nat'l Lampoon)
Alan Coopersmith
|>>If CRL hadn't given shell access to
|>>their users, it would be more difficult for a user to
|>>break in as, I think, it (the user) would be more easily
|>>identified.
|>
|>Fascinating. So no one should be permitted to provide shell access
|>since some might abuse it?
|>
|
If you really think this, you better get your machines off the
Internet right away. CRL is not alone - there are hundreds of
thousands of unsupervised users around the net with shell access, and
there's nothing you can do to change it. (Nor is shell access needed
to break into machines if whatever replacement the user is given
allows a reasonable level of use - and it doesn't really make a
difference in what the can be tracked as doing.)
--
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith Internet: al...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
Open Computing Facility or: al...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
University of California, Berkeley Bitnet: alanc@ucbocf
uom...@fractals.fractals.com
>uom...@fractals.fractals writes:
>
>>This is an interesting question: is not an Internet provider
>>ultimately responsible for breakins done by individuals using
>>the provider's systems?
>
>Legally, this is untested as far as I know. Consider analogies:
>is the phone company legally responsible if someone uses their
>facilities to defraud you? For a public access service such as crl,
>this is the closest equivalent.
>
The difference is that CRL has much more control over the use of their systems than
the local phone companies has over theirs.
>>If CRL hadn't given shell access to
>>their users, it would be more difficult for a user to
>>break in as, I think, it (the user) would be more easily
>>identified.
>
>Fascinating. So no one should be permitted to provide shell access
>since some might abuse it?
>
You got it.
Daniel
[ TEXT DELETED ]
>uom...@fractals.fractals writes:
>>This is an interesting question: is not an Internet provider
>>ultimately responsible for breakins done by individuals using
>>the provider's systems?
>
>is the phone company legally responsible if someone uses their
>facilities to defraud you? For a public access service such as crl,
>this is the closest equivalent.
Sorry, but the analogy is not quite that clear cut. crl, ccnet, netcom
and many others "reserve the right to refuse service". The reason that the
phone company is not held accountable is it's "common carrier" status.
The legal concept includes that they will _offer_ service to any one who
can pay, and _offer_ equal terms to everyone. The only exceptions are
those that are governed by specific laws, I.E smut lines, non-payment, etc.
And now my opinion...
By reserving the right, the providers DO assume responsibility for
what happens on their system. Most courts would probably rule that they
are not responsible for acts that were done without their knowledge. On
the other hand, they would be bound to stop misuse once it is brought to
their attention.
BTW, logging onto another's system without authorization IS punishable
by law.
Daniel B. Suthers, CSP, CCP
Paul A Vixie
>is reasonably fast. With the kind of PR they are getting here, sounds like
>it will stay that way for a while...
This is wrong in at least two ways. (1) having good response can be the
result of limiting the number of people you put on each shell machine, the
number of people you have sharing a 56K link to a POP, and other provision-
ing issues -- just because Netcom's provisioning metrics don't suit you,
don't assume that anyone who is faster has fewer customers; (2) most people
who are potential new customers of an ISP do not have net access right now,
they just saw Al Gore on Tee Vee and want in on the action so they can brag
to their friends down at the bagel shop.
kgau...@ssf-sys.dhl.com
In article <jzk-130994220026@DialupNewsWatcher>, <j...@crl.com> writes:
> Path:
ssf-sys!uunet!gatekeeper.us.oracle.com!barrnet.net!nntp.crl.com!DialupNewsWatch
er!user
> From: j...@crl.com (Joe Kukulka)
> Newsgroups: ba.internet
> Subject: Re: CRL Sucks big time
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 22:00:26 -0800
> Organization: CRL on San Francisco Bay
> Lines: 23
> Distribution: ca
> Message-ID: <jzk-130994220026@DialupNewsWatcher>
> References: <P4NSkyZk...@rahul.net> <353ml5$c...@ccnet.ccnet.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: crl7.crl.com
>
> In article <353ml5$c...@ccnet.ccnet.com>, b...@ccnet.com (Bob Ames) wrote:
>
> > I suspect they might be some kind of police front organization, as well.
>
> Do you have evidence for this? Or is this just a comment made in anger?
>
> In defense of CRL, I have found CRL to have the fastest response of any
> other system I've yet to try. I also hardly ever get a busy, and if I do,
Michael Macrone
posting an article.
--
Michael Macrone
mac...@well.sf.ca.us --&-- mac...@ccnet.com
Bob Ames
>
>In article <jzk-130994220026@DialupNewsWatcher>, <j...@crl.com> writes:
>> In article <353ml5$c...@ccnet.ccnet.com>, b...@ccnet.com (Bob Ames) wrote:
>> > I suspect they might be some kind of police front organization, as well.
>>
>> Do you have evidence for this? Or is this just a comment made in anger?
Just a gut feeling after a meeting with them, or actually with one person
who seemed at the time to be the only technical employee at CRL. His
personality, statements, attitudes, and actions suggested to me to be
those of someone who is or was a policeman. He also indicated verbally
that he had close ties with numerous police agencies.
As far as a comment made in anger:
I worked long for them and produced very quality UNIX software which
allowed them to get out their $2/hr SLIP bills. After the billing
program I wrote was in place and they were finally getting income
from their SLIP users, they started opening POPs all over the place.
Instead of them fulfilling their end of commitments, they:
1. Never provided a Sun for use at my home.
2. Never provided a SLIP/PPP connection at my home.
3. Never offered me a position after meeting the job requirements and
passing all tests by designing quality UNIX software and waiting
for them to begin hiring support personnel.
4. Never paid my mother $80 for a line installation.
I did a great job for them designing their SLIP billing program and other
smaller programs, but they didn't honor their agreements. So I'm angry
at them.
I learned a valuable lesson here:
Get important agreements in writing.
Get important agreements in writing.
Get important agreements in writing.
And to add insult to injury, they even sent in an MX-Delete record to
the Internet domain registrar which nearly caused my to lose my
domain name, rush.com. I have control of that domain now, though I had
to practically beg to get it back from someone who had taken it after
CRL sent in the delete record.
Get important agreements in writing.
Bob Ames
Per Hojmark
Why not find yourself a small provider that can provide more 'personal'
service? That's we did after enduring Netcom and PSI. Most of the big guys
only do support via phone tag or email. Haphazard at best.
After having gone thru a couple of providers before and being given the
task of evaluating our new provider, I quickly became a skeptic. After
all, we don't want to have to change our address/feed yet another time.
We found these guys (ViaNet) & liked them because they are a real business
(not some guy operating out of his garage) and the prices are reasonable.
Reasonable in the sense that although they're cheaper than the BIG BOYS,
we're convinced that there a stable & going concern. (Our CFO nixed going
with some of the really cheap ones because he didn't think that they
would survive in the long term. We're looking at getting a leased line
someday.)
Also, if we have any problems we have a pager number to call. We haven't
had to use it. Service here is pretty reliable. I did call the pager
once to see how long I'd have to wait to get a response. I was surprized
to get my page returned in about 5 min.
I think Netcom is a victim of it's own success. Hey, has anyone heard
any rumours about Netcom going public? Maybe then they'll have the
cash to upgrade everything...
Just another happy vianet customer...
-per
===============================================================================
* Hey! I really DID major in basket weaving... *
===============================================================================
kgau...@ssf-sys.dhl.com
In article <VIXIE.94S...@gw.home.vix.com>, <vi...@gw.home.vix.com>
writes:
> Path:
ssf-sys!uunet!tcsi.tcs.com!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!decwrl!vixie!nn
rp!vixie
> From: vi...@gw.home.vix.com (Paul A Vixie)
> Newsgroups: ba.internet
> Subject: Re: CRL Sucks big time
> Followup-To: ba.internet
> Organization: Vixie Enterprises
> Lines: 17
> Message-ID: <VIXIE.94S...@gw.home.vix.com>
> References: <jzk-130994220026@DialupNewsWatcher> <Cw4zE...@ssf-sys.DHL.COM>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.home.vix.com
> In-reply-to: kgau...@ssf-sys.DHL.COM's message of Wed, 14 Sep 1994 20:25:59
GMT
OK fine. Just wanted to clarify that I have no experience with Netcom, so
I have no opinion about them. We have direct internet access here at work.
If I need internet access at home, I can always use AOL. AOL has a long way
to go as an ISP, but at less than ten bucks a month, I still use them from
time to time.
-Ken
Marco E. Nicosia
)
) Get important agreements in writing.
)
) Get important agreements in writing.
)
) Get important agreements in writing.
Never involve your mother in your business deals.
) Get important agreements in writing.
)
) b...@ccnet.com <<address change<< -or- [soon] b...@rush.com
) "We each pay a fabulous price... for our visions of paradise", Neil Peart '87
--
____________________________From the console of:___________________________
Marco E. Nicosia http://server.berkeley.edu/~marco
Open Computing Facility Students Improving Campus On-line Services
eXperimental Computing Facility Computer Science Undergraduate Association
Drivebare
I wanted access to the Internet and after reading an ad in Microtimes,
I called CRL and asked if they had a dial up in my area (San Jose 2)
and they said, "yes." Cool. I gave them my credit card into and signed
the necessary paper work to get the account established. After everything
was done, they gave me the dial up number... a 415 number. etc,etc,etc.
Can I be so brave as to make the suggestion that you call KCBS call for
action, the number escapes me at the moment and tell them your story.
They have been real good at getting people's money back when a service
provider has failed to provide the service they calimed they had.
And thanks for the word on CRL.
Sean Eric Fagan
>They also harbor and facilitate spammers at CRL. I have sent examples of
>inappropriate ads to postmaster and root at CRL and gotten no response.
I have sent complaints to postmaster@crl before, and gotten no official
response. I do, however, chat with one of their people in a social
situation quite a bit, and have gotten confirmation that the complaints
*are* noticed, and acted upon. They are, however, being extra cautious and
not discussing pending investigations or actions with outside people --
including those who make the complaint.
I can understand the reasoning, but I do wish they would at least
*acknowledge* them.
Craig Shaver
>
>In article <jzk-130994220026@DialupNewsWatcher>, <j...@crl.com> writes:
>> Path:
>ssf-sys!uunet!gatekeeper.us.oracle.com!barrnet.net!nntp.crl.com!DialupNewsWatch
>er!user
>>
>> In article <353ml5$c...@ccnet.ccnet.com>, b...@ccnet.com (Bob Ames) wrote:
>>
>> > I suspect they might be some kind of police front organization, as well.
>>
>> Do you have evidence for this? Or is this just a comment made in anger?
>>
>> In defense of CRL, I have found CRL to have the fastest response of any
>> other system I've yet to try. I also hardly ever get a busy, and if I do,
>.........
>
>Sounds to me like they don't have very many users; that's why their system
>is reasonably fast. With the kind of PR they are getting here, sounds like
>it will stay that way for a while...
>
They also harbor and facilitate spammers at CRL. I have sent examples of
inappropriate ads to postmaster and root at CRL and gotten no response.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--
Craig Shaver (cr...@progroup.com) (415)390-0654
Productivity Group POB 60458 Sunnyvale, CA 94088
Craig Shaver
Just a followup:
After posting this I got a reply back that said they had noticed what
I wrote them and were not going to act on it unless more people complained
or I sent them the faq.
Anyway, they did finally respond.
Chris Beaumont
Thats' strange, I had previously heard good things about CRL.
a2i in San Jose seems to have a good reputation. I'd call them.
Craig Green
Dennis Wong (dw...@rahul.net) wrote:
>First, let me start with a correction to my earlier post. I am in SJ3,
>not SJ2 as stated earlier. However, CRL at the time knew what zone I was
>calling from.
How? Did you tell them SJ 3, did you tell them SJ 2, did you expect them
to read your mind?
>The problem is that I ASKED CRL if they had a dialup that was local to my
>calling area, and after supplying them with my address and telephone
>number, they said, "Yes, we have a dialup number that is within your
>local calling area." I asked this before the account was established;
>had they informed me that they did not have a dial up within my area, I
>would have looked elsewhere.
Ahh. I see.
Did they just ask address / phone number, or did they really ask you
which phone zone you live in? The latter is more likely, it's what
matters, and it's what they asked me when I called them.
Did you answer them correctly? Are you sure, given that you
already posted the wrong answer once? Is it remotely possible that
in among the other things they asked "Is that a San Jose 1 or 2 number?"
and you said "Yes" and they assumed you knew where you lived?
>CRL lied to me and expected me to pay about $40 for a day of Internet
>access plus LD charges.
>
>I am not after "something for nothing," but merely a provider who would give
>me decent service and not the BS and the run-around that CRL dishes.
It is also possible that, like when you posted first, you were confused
when you called them and you told them an incorrect phone zone.
I've seen their ads in Computer Currents, they say "San Jose (1,2)".
I talked to them on the phone, asked about south bay (this some weeks
ago, not after your tiff with them), and was immediately told
"Local call from san jose 1 and 2 and much of the rest of the
south bay, but not san jose 3". They were open and clear about it.
Too bad, I had to go with someone with local service for home.
I've supported users before, and it really peeves me when they make
a mistake and try to blame staff. It's possible they really did
tell you otherwise, Dennis, but so far everything I've seen of
theirs is consistent, and you've changed your story.
Bet that your credit card company isn't gonna give you your
money back when it's all over.
CG
Randy Bias
for an honest mistake. $40 is *not* going to kill them. And I doubt this
happens that often. Now, this is just what *I* would do in business practice,
so you can't hold them to my moral/ethical standards, but if it were *me* as
the user I would definitely dispute the charges and I don't think it is clear
cut at all over whether he we will get his money back. I'm betting he will.
Gene Choi
Craig Green <cra...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>
>I've supported users before, and it really peeves me when they make
>a mistake and try to blame staff. It's possible they really did
>tell you otherwise, Dennis, but so far everything I've seen of
>theirs is consistent, and you've changed your story.
>Bet that your credit card company isn't gonna give you your
>money back when it's all over.
>
services seem to have.
Not to flame anyone, but anyone ever heard the motto:
"The customer is always right."
Some of the online services (like Netcom and CRL) need to learn
this, like any other company in ANY business (e.g. supermarkets -
you can return anything that's not to your satisfaction e.g. any
normal store you can return what you purchased etc etc the list
goes on for almost anything).
CRL should just admit they made the mistake, and give the guy
the money back. Obviously they won't. Seems like this kind of
support is lacking in many of the new pop-up online timesharing
services.
I hope you get my point. No flames please.
-Gene
--
Zima zux!
Graig Green
>I think this is the kind of attitude problems several of the larger
>services seem to have.
>Not to flame anyone, but anyone ever heard the motto:
>"The customer is always right."
>Some of the online services (like Netcom and CRL) need to learn
>this, like any other company in ANY business (e.g. supermarkets -
>you can return anything that's not to your satisfaction e.g. any
>normal store you can return what you purchased etc etc the list
>goes on for almost anything).
"I'm sorry, Mr Tailor, I gave you the wrong measurements
for my new suit, I guess I'll have to not buy it after all.
Can I have my money back?"
Returning an item is not the same as returning a service which
has already been performed (setting up the account, at least).
You generally can't return a service.
>CRL should just admit they made the mistake, and give the guy
>the money back. Obviously they won't. Seems like this kind of
>support is lacking in many of the new pop-up online timesharing
>services.
Ah, but they may well not have made the mistake.
He's the one who doesn't know what phone region he lives in.
He changed his story on that between when he first posted and
his more recent complaints. See my Mr Tailor example above.
>I hope you get my point. No flames please.
I see your point. But this is the real world, if I fuck up then
I expect it's going to cost me something. Sometimes it doesn't,
but usually it does. But I don't have any expectation that businesses
will subsidize my making mistakes.
CG
David A. Kaye
: CRL lied to me and expected me to pay about $40 for a day of Internet
: access plus LD charges.
They made a mistake. They didn't lie to you. There is no benefit in
lying to you because sooner or later you'd notice it's not a local call.
I'd suggest you stop playing victim and quit your bitching. If you're
bright enough to use the Internet, you're bright enough to find out
whether a number is local to you or not.
When I signed up I asked what prefix I'd be calling so that I could verify
that it was indeed local to me (their earlier Marin business office was
*not* a local call to me). They told me 2 other nearby number and both
turned out to be local.
--
d...@crl.com Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose;
San Francisco Freedom ain't worth nothin' if it's free...
Paul A Vixie
>back. Obviously they won't. Seems like this kind of support is lacking in
>many of the new pop-up online timesharing services.
>
>I hope you get my point. No flames please.
I hope this won't be a flame. What happened here is that this fellow asked
CRL if his number was in their local calling area. They said something like
"well, SJ1 and SJ2 are in our local calling area, why don't you call telco's
operator or business office or look in your phone book and see where you are?"
It turned out later that the customer was in SJ3 and hadn't checked, was
surprised by a phone bill, and wants CRL to reimburse him for his own error.
I don't think this is a reasonable expectation. If someone out there would
like to reimburse me for my errors, let me know and I'll send you the list
along with an invoice.
The customer is sometimes wrong.
The internet is not for sissies.
I guess this was a flame after all.
--
Paul Vixie
La Honda, CA
<pa...@vix.com>
decwrl!vixie!paul
Paul A Vixie
Can we end the thread or at least change the subject header?
Terry Carroll
Before slamming CRL for providing a 415 number to a San Jose Area 2
customer, let me point out that several 415 numbers are local to the San
Jose Area 2, despite the fact that that area is in the 408 area code. I
live in Area 2 as well. When CRL gave me a 415 number, I was skeptical,
but I looked in the phone book, and sure enough, it's a local call.
So please don't jump to unwarranted conclusions that CRL is being
fraudulent on the basis of different area codes.
--
Terry Carroll | I survived the Great California Bar
Santa Clara, CA | Exam of Summer 1994, and all I got was
carr...@netcom.com | this lousy .signature.
Rob Bidleman
: One last thing, I was not given the dial up number until all the paperwork
I am so tired of hearing this whiney-ass and seeing his crap...grow up.
Get a carrier, they all suck one way or another to someone like you who
can't figure out what the hell the "dialup" list is for. I consulted the
list by ftp BEFORE I called them. Which is what I suggest you do next time
you buy a car, carrier, condom, canoe or simply call someone who CARES !!!
John Navas
> One last thing, I was not given the dial up number until all the paperwork
> that I was in SJ2, and assumed that the 415 diap up was local to me.
> Had the dial up number been available to me before I signed the dotted
> line, I would had questioned it and called my telephone company to
> verify whether or not it was local.
> I am not trying to play victim. Just hate getting shafted.
No offense, but it sounds to me like you're trying to blame CRL for your
own failure to make a reasonable inquiry (and that CRL simply made an
honest mistake). I *always* check telephone numbers for myself, in
advance. No need to even call the telephone company, since the
information is in the front of the directory. And I call a few times,
just to see if it's always busy.
Best regards,
John <JNa...@Netcom.com>
>> Please note the recent change in my email address. <<